| Revision as of 18:16, 25 August 2015 editTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,510 edits →180.234... vandal← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:19, 25 August 2015 edit undoJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,338 edits →page locking: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| I do hope that a range block is possible. That idea has been raised in the past, such as at ] and at . Some of the other IPs within this seemingly endless list were mentioned in those messages. If there were to be some collateral effect from a range block, it might make the ISP wake up and control the behaviour of its irresponsible customer. --] (]) 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | I do hope that a range block is possible. That idea has been raised in the past, such as at ] and at . Some of the other IPs within this seemingly endless list were mentioned in those messages. If there were to be some collateral effect from a range block, it might make the ISP wake up and control the behaviour of its irresponsible customer. --] (]) 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks. I will have a look and see if there is anything that I can do. ] (]) 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | :Thanks. I will have a look and see if there is anything that I can do. ] (]) 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == page locking == | |||
| Hi! I'm wondering exactly which unblock requests at ] were sufficiently disruptive to edit-protect that page; nobody besides the editor himself, the blocking admin, you, and me has edited that page, and though his requests are awfully whiny, they are hardly disruptive. Also, there's no need to protect the page anyway; if his requests were sufficiently disruptive to warrant slamming the door shut, we simply change the block to disallow user talk page editing (that way, nobody but the blocked user is affected.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:19, 25 August 2015
Archives:
- 2005 - 17th April
- 2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July
- 2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November
- 2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October
- 2009 - 16th May
- 2011 - 15th December
- 2015 - 12th May
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back
180.234... vandal
I do hope that a range block is possible. That idea has been raised in the past, such as at User talk:GiantSnowman/2015#2018 FIFA World Cup and at this message at AIV. Some of the other IPs within this seemingly endless list were mentioned in those messages. If there were to be some collateral effect from a range block, it might make the ISP wake up and control the behaviour of its irresponsible customer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will have a look and see if there is anything that I can do. TigerShark (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
page locking
Hi! I'm wondering exactly which unblock requests at User talk:Robert at Citizens for Freedom of Information were sufficiently disruptive to edit-protect that page; nobody besides the editor himself, the blocking admin, you, and me has edited that page, and though his requests are awfully whiny, they are hardly disruptive. Also, there's no need to protect the page anyway; if his requests were sufficiently disruptive to warrant slamming the door shut, we simply change the block to disallow user talk page editing (that way, nobody but the blocked user is affected.) --jpgordon 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)